Cycling Superhighways - Hit or Miss?

[dellzeqq]

I've gone for the second option, but, then again, I use CS7 which is the clear winner in terms of numbers

Yes, there were a lot of cyclists before the road got painted blue, but, then again, there are more now

Yes, Stockwell is just plain stupid, but, then again, it was before

Yes, the Oval is a worry, but, then again it's not easy to see how it could be sorted (although making the ASLs twenty feet deep would help)

Yes it's just a coat of blue paint, but, then again, it does get respect from motorists, especially those pulling out from side turnings. And those displays showing cycling times that are entirely realistic, or even generous, are really quite inspiring - especially if you're waiting for a bus

Yes cars park in it, but the jeans-wearing BSO-riding crew just swan round those parked cars, and they get away with it. And is it my imagination, or have private cars all but given up north of the Oval?

Yes, the Elephant and Castle bypass is just bonkers, but it's there because Johnson is a cretin and wants more and more cars to go through the roundabouts as free as the buffalo.

So, all in all, a qualified thumbs up.

 

[gaz]

I went for the last, just because of the mudguards

In all seriousness, I use CS7 most days, I often use CS8 and I have used CS3 several times.
Overall I think they are poor, they add little overall to the route but a guide. In some cases they are down right dangerous as they take you through door zones, end when you don't need them and put you on the left hand side of narrow bus lanes.
They could have at least changed some of the lighting sequences to keep things moving on them. I still spend a large amount of my time on the CS7 compleatly stationary at traffic lights.

To me they are currently just highways, there is little that is supe about them. I have seen several crashes on the superhighways involving the classic left and right hooks, so clearly peolpe aren't looking out for cyclists.

 

[StuartG]

I voted for the 'good but for the detail'.

Its horrible to have to say it but last Friday's second fatality on a CS is going to make TfL think through that junction in more detail than if the CS did not exist. In other words the blue paint does imply a level of protection not present elsewhere and when it fails so spectacularly TfL will be under greater pressure to re-think the junction. It forms a basis of expectation for improvement over time. It is a self made rod for Boris's back.

I wonder if he really thought through the consequences or thought it an easy (quick & cheap) triumph?

 

[steve52]

a step in the right direction but we could do a lot better,see holland

 

[benborp]

I think they're a good thing. Unfortunately let down by the detail to such an extent that they're not too clever, which is how I voted.

The cycling boom in London offered the opportunity for some bold solutions. There really is no need for the CSHs to disappear under parked cars, tightrope walk across the mouth of junctions or give up entirely at the thought of a complex intersection.
The reality now is that there are enough cyclists to dictate traffic flow at peak times - they are going to move out around parked cars, they are going to avoid riding under the wheels of rat runners in Colliers Wood, there are going to be two dozen of them making their way across every junction at every phase - designing the superhighways to reflect that reality would make a huge difference. Put the paint where the thousands of cyclists will be, not where one cyclist could notionally hide from the traffic.
At the moment it can feel wonderful to be part of a shoal of cyclists making progress, shimmering along the road in a wide blue lane that is ours; but there is the awareness that suddenly there will be open water and it's each cyclist for themselves - drivers do perceive the loss of blue paint as a loss of legitimacy to use of the road and seem to become predatory.

 

[Aperitif]

^ Good post, Ben.

 

[Red Light]

Yes, there were a lot of cyclists before the road got painted blue, but, then again, there are more now

More cyclists or just the addition of cyclists who used to use other routes away from the main road?

 

[dellzeqq]

More cyclists or just the addition of cyclists who used to use other routes away from the main road?

I don't know, but I suspect the former

 

[ufkacbln]

The problem is (as with all cycle provision) is lack of any real will to make it work

The same problems dog the infrastructure throughout the country whether it be poor design, lack of any continuity or lack of enforcement as it becomes blocked and obstructed.

 

[dellzeqq]

to my way of thinking 'work' means more cyclists. CS7 'works' by virtue of cyclists outnumbering cars on what, lest we forget, is the A3 and the A24 for large slices of the day, and not by a small margin. I think the paint is horrible, the cyclists unstylish, the route haphazard - but that's an irrelevance. Forty-five cyclists waiting together at a red light trumps all my expectations.

 

[stowie]

It would be too easy to be simply cynical about the superhighways. I cycle CS2 regularly (I think probably thought of as one of the worst implementations), and have taken the CS7 on occasion.

On the positive side, the route is very clearly marked. The somewhat tortuous route through the back streets to avoid E+C is at least easy to follow (not too sure what it was like before, but inadequate signs are de rigeur on most "quiet" cycle routes).

ASLs tend to be deeper than normal, and therefore cars respect them more often (although enforcing ASLs from time to time would make a difference).

CS7 seemed really quite OK in most parts, but I think that this is mostly due to being on bus lanes which are their own form of very effective segregated cycling facility without the need for blue paint.

On the negative side, we clearly have the issues with junctions tragically shown up with the deaths at Bow. For a true CSH these junctions needed difficult decisions to re-allocate road space from cars, and these decisions were sidestepped to make compromises that simply don't work. And we have, on CS2, vast stretches where the blue paint covers part of the inside lane to make it appear that you can fit two lanes of traffic + a cyclist on the road when you cannot. Again, I assume done in the name of traffic flow.

On CS2 - the route I know the best - there are too many compromises and fudges to make the route really meaningful.

 

[martint235]

I agree with Ben. I think too many opportunities have been missed when the CSHs were being introduced. They could have been used to completely transform the cycling experience in London with things like phasing lights especially for the CSH (thereby eliminating the need for an ASL as cycles would have their own green light before cars could move). The main design faults have been covered by other posts but one thing I found was an area on CS3 (I think, out in the east end) where the CSH was two way with a high kerb on the right hand side into the road. I dread to think what would happen if a cyclist coming towards you wobbled causing you to swerve.....

I also disagree with Dell, I count "work" in this context to mean "make safer" rather than just more cyclists. I'm not sure that the CSH has made that big an improvement to cyclists' safety although of course all cyclists also have a part to play in this.

 

[The Jogger]

I sometimes use one between Clapham Junc and Wandsworth, I voted 2 as sometimes it's a bit narrow and disappears.

 

[arallsopp]

Four from me. I'd not had much experience of the CS routes, until the most recent Sunday London Ride. Far too many obstructions, diversions on and off the pavement, being fed 40 yards down side turnings you want to cross. If I were a driver, I'd be scared witless as to when the POBs were about to drop back into my path.

If you want people to choose cycles over cars, you've got to prioritise cycles over cars. As it is now, its at best marginalising us, and at worse bloody dangerous. Not a fan, sorry.

 

[Buddfox]

I use CS8 every day, and have to say I think it's the best thing since pneumatic tyres. To be fair, I only use the bit from Chelsea Bridge (is it Chelsea Bridge? Anyway, from where it arrives on the North side of the river) along to Lambeth Bridge, so not a lot. But it has turned my commute into an absolute joy for that part. Nice and wide, plenty of room to overtake other cyclists without having to get involved in amongst the cars, and it's a nice surface to ride on. Just get my head down and go for it. Wish they would put them in many other places across London - I'd add a CS8 branch line down to the Kings Road and continue it along the Embankment from Parliament Square to Blackfriars, where there is already a wide cycle lane which could easily be converted. Don't ask me to design how you'd get it down by the Houses of Parliament and round Parliament Square though.

I guess I can see why some parts are not perfect in some places (and I've never been there, but can only conclude that the Bow flyover is a nightmare given recent events) - but compared to not having them, it's not much short of a revolution for cyclists. When the decision was taken to add them, could we have expected much more given the actual role of the car in society (as opposed to Utopian visions of what it should be like)?